Our students are bent over their desks, furiously bubbling in their answer sheets. The school year up to this point has been largely devoted to preparing them for this, the ultimate test of their worth – but more significantly, the worth of the public school they attend.

In response to the intense pressures of No Child Left Behind, which results in schools being closed if they fail to meet proficiency targets, some schools are going to extreme lengths to increase the numbers on their scores. But are we measuring what really counts?

There has been much discussion about a recent study showing that drugs used to treat clogged arteries have a puzzling effect. People who take them lower their cholesterol levels – that all-important number is improved. We would expect that this lower cholesterol would result in better health, but the research has revealed that in spite of the better number, the arteries remain clogged and the heart disease unimproved.

Doctors are saying that we are “treating the number,” rather than the actual illness. Parents and teachers are asking the same thing about standardized tests. For years, we have been “treating the numbers,” seeking to increase standardized test scores, assuming a solid connection exists between these scores and the educational health of our students.

As an educator, I am committed to helping students learn more, and I hope their test scores reflect their growth over the year. But some new practices have me wondering if rising scores really mean students are learning more.

Some schools are using a technique called “backward mapping,” which means planning instruction backward from the beginning of the year, aligned with the desired outcomes. If we have good standards, that is fine. But in some cases, the staff works not with the standards, but with a narrower document: the “blueprints,” which reveal the actual sorts of questions that will be on the test.

Then the school year is mapped out, and likely test items scheduled into the calendar for the year. The goal is that every instructional moment be geared to addressing things that will be tested. Often, instruction is done in the style of the exam so that students become accustomed to choosing which of four options is correct on a multiple-choice test, or responding to short writing prompts.

I spoke with an elementary teacher at one such school, recently recognized for improving their scores. Many of her fifth-grade students have become disengaged by the relentless test preparation. Lessons focus on discrete skills in reading and math, while larger thematic units and hands-on investigations in science and social studies have been cut because they do not directly improve test scores.

But these deeper projects give students a sense of accomplishment, allowing them to delve into a subject in depth, and developing their abilities in art, speaking and critical thinking. Losing them is stealing much of the joy – and true rigor – from our classrooms.

We also have to ask ourselves what it means to properly educate a child. Don’t we care that students have a basic scientific understanding of the world in which we live? Don’t we want our students to have an awareness of history and an ability to make sense of complex events? Don’t we want students who can express themselves through art and music? Many of our test-driven maps are leaving these valuable things behind.

We can’t blame teachers at these schools for this situation. The schools are under tremendous pressure. If test scores fail to rise, the schools can be closed, and teachers and administrators can lose their jobs. The real culprit is high-stakes testing and the impossible mandates of No Child Left Behind.

Focusing all of our energy on test preparation may boost scores but actually diminish the quality of education in our schools. And it may be one reason as many as half of our students are dropping out – and one in five teachers will leave the profession this year. We need to look beyond the numbers to see if our students are getting the education they deserve.

ANTHONY CODY is a National Board-certified science teacher and coach who has worked in the Oakland schools for 20 years. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.